Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools, 72608-72616 [2015-29676]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
72608
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
Vol. 80, No. 224
Friday, November 20, 2015
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER
contains notices to the public of the proposed
issuance of rules and regulations. The
purpose of these notices is to give interested
persons an opportunity to participate in the
rule making prior to the adoption of the final
rules.
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket Number EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0027]
RIN 1904–AD31
Energy Conservation Standards for
Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves:
Availability of Provisional Analysis
Tools
Office of Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability
(NODA); withdrawal and republication.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Department of
Energy (DOE) is withdrawing and
republishing the Notice of Data
Availability (NODA) published in the
Federal Register on November 12, 2015
(80 FR 69888) due to errors in that
published document. DOE is
republishing this document in its
entirety. DOE published a notice of
proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the
commercial prerinse spray valve (CPSV)
energy conservation standards
rulemaking on July 9, 2015. In response
to comments on the NOPR, DOE has
revised its analyses. This NODA
announces the availability of those
updated analyses and results, and gives
interested parties an opportunity to
comment on these analyses and submit
additional data. The NODA analysis is
publicly available on the DOE Web site.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data,
and information regarding this NODA
submitted no later than December 4,
2015. See section IV, ‘‘Public
Participation,’’ for details.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted
must identify the NODA for Energy
Conservation Standards for commercial
prerinse spray valves, and provide
docket number EERE–2014–BT–STD–
0027 and/or regulatory information
number (RIN) number 1904–AD31.
Comments may be submitted using any
of the following methods:
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
SUMMARY:
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal:
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: SprayValves2014STD0027@
ee.doe.gov. Include the docket number
and/or RIN in the subject line of the
message. Submit electronic comments
in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF,
or ASCII file format, and avoid the use
of special characters or any form of
encryption.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards,
U.S. Department of Energy, Building
Technologies Office, Mailstop EE–5B,
1000 Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121. If
possible, please submit all items on a
CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda
Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, 950
L’Enfant Plaza SW., Suite 600,
Washington, DC 20024. Telephone:
(202) 586–2945. If possible, please
submit all items on a CD, in which case
it is not necessary to include printed
copies.
No faxes will be accepted. For
detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see section
IV of this document (‘‘Public
Participation’’).
Docket: The docket, which includes
Federal Register notices, public meeting
attendee lists and transcripts,
comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for
review at www.regulations.gov. All
documents in the docket are listed in
the www.regulations.gov index.
However, some documents listed in the
index, such as those containing
information that is exempt from public
disclosure, may not be publicly
available.
A link to the docket Web page can be
found at: www1.eere.energy.gov/
buildings/appliance_standards/
rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100. This Web
page will contain a link to the docket for
this notice on the www.regulations.gov
site. The www.regulations.gov Web page
will contain simple instructions on how
to access all documents, including
public comments, in the docket. See
section IV, ‘‘Public Participation,’’ for
further information on how to submit
comments through
www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
PO 00000
Frm 00001
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building
Technologies Office, EE–5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–8654. Email:
SprayValves2014STD0027@
ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of
Energy, Office of the General Counsel,
GC–33, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585–0121.
Telephone: (202) 586–9496. Email:
Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to
submit a comment, review other
public comments and the docket, or
participate in the public meeting,
contact Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202)
586–2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by
the Department of Energy
A. Engineering Analysis
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the
NODA
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
C. National Impact Analysis
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
DOE published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NOPR) proposing amended
energy conservation standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves
(CPSVs) on July 9, 2015 (CPSV NOPR).
80 FR 39485. The CPSV NOPR proposed
new CPSV product classes based on
spray force, and presented results for
the engineering analysis, economic
analyses, and proposed standard levels.
DOE held a public meeting on July 28,
2015 to present the CPSV NOPR. At the
public meeting, and during the
comment period, DOE received
comments on various aspects of the
CPSV NOPR.
In response to these comments, DOE
has revised the analyses presented in
the CPSV NOPR. This notice of data
availability (NODA) announces the
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
availability of those updated analyses
and results and invites interested parties
to submit comments on these analyses
or additional data. DOE may further
revise the analysis presented in this
rulemaking based on any new or
updated information or data it obtains
during the course of the rulemaking.
DOE encourages stakeholders to provide
any additional data or information that
may improve the analysis.
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed
by the Department of Energy
DOE conducted analyses of
commercial prerinse spray valves in the
following areas: (1) Engineering, (2)
manufacturer impacts, (3) life-cycle cost
and payback period, and (4) national
impacts. The spreadsheet tools used in
preparing these analyses are available
at: https://www.regulations.gov/
#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD0027. Each individual spreadsheet
includes an introduction describing the
various inputs and outputs for the
analysis, as well as operation
instructions. A brief description of each
of these analysis tools is provided
below. The key aspects of the present
analyses and DOE’s updates to the CPSV
NOPR analyses are described in the
following sections.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
A. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes
the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC)
and efficiency levels (ELs) for each
product class of commercial prerinse
spray valves. This relationship serves as
the basis for cost-benefit calculations
performed in the other three analysis
tools for individual consumers,
manufacturers, and the nation.
In the CPSV NOPR, DOE proposed
three product classes that were
delineated by spray force. DOE analyzed
several ELs associated with specific
flow rates for each product class. DOE
received feedback from interested
parties opposing the three product class
structure and recommending a single
product class. (Chicago Faucets, No. 26
at pp. 1–2; 1 PMI, No. 27 at p. 1; Fisher,
No. 30 at p. 1; ASAP, NEEA, NRDC, No.
32 at p. 1; PG&E, SCE, SCGC, SDG&E,
No. 34 at p. 1–2; AWE, No. 28 at p. 7;
and T&S Brass, No. 33 at p. 2)
DOE is required by EPCA to consider
performance-related features that justify
1 A notation in this form provides a reference for
information that is in DOE’s rulemaking docket to
amend energy conservation standards for
commercial prerinse spray valves (Docket No.
EERE–2014–BT–STD–0027, which is maintained at
www.regulations.gov). This particular notation
refers to a comment from Chicago Faucets on pp.
1–2 of document number 6 in the docket.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
different standard levels, such as
features affecting customer utility, when
establishing or amending energy
conservation standards. 42 U.S.C.
6295(q)) In response to comments from
interested parties, DOE reviewed the
market for commercial prerinse spray
valves and available data regarding their
typical performance and usage
characteristics in different applications.
DOE market research shows that
commercial prerinse spray valves have
a range of flow rates, spray forces, and
spray shapes. For example,
manufacturers market commercial
prerinse spray valves at lower flow rates
with specific terminology such as
‘‘ultra-low-flow’’ or ‘‘low-flow’’ spray
valves, indicating that there are diverse
products available to satisfy different
consumer needs when selecting
commercial prerinse spray valves.
Conversely, for commercial prerinse
spray valves at higher flow rates, DOE
has predominately observed showertype units. Shower-type units contain
multiple orifices, as opposed to the
more traditional, single-orifice CPSV
unit. In the CPSV NOPR public meeting,
T&S Brass stated that consumer
satisfaction is very high at the upper
range of the market flow rate
distribution, and that the shower-type
commercial prerinse spray valves in the
upper range of the market flow rate
distribution represent the majority of
the market and highest level of customer
satisfaction because these units prevent
splash-back. (T&S, No. 23 at pp. 42–43)
T&S Brass also commented that there
are several applications of commercial
prerinse spray valves, and all may
require different spray forces. (T&S
Brass, No. 6 at p. 39) Based on the above
information, DOE believes that the
CPSV market offers a variety of prerinse
spray valves that have different design
features and different end-user
applications.
Additionally, DOE found a strong
linear relationship between spray force
and flow rate, indicating that spray force
is an important performance-related
feature that affects consumer utility. The
relationship between spray force and
flow rate is presented in the engineering
spreadsheet accompanying this NODA.
DOE constructed the flow rate-spray
force relationship using data primarily
from DOE testing, and supplementary
data from DOE’s Compliance
Certification Management System
(CCMS), the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency’s (EPA) WaterSense®
program, and Food Service Technology
Center (FSTC) reports.2 Additionally,
2 DOE compliance certification data for
commercial prerinse spray valves available at
PO 00000
Frm 00002
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
72609
DOE’s research shows that spray force
relates to user satisfaction. A
WaterSense field study found that low
water pressure, or spray force, is a
source of user dissatisfaction.
WaterSense evaluated 14 commercial
prerinse spray valve models and
collected 56 consumer satisfaction
reviews, of which 9 indicated
unsatisfactory performance. Seven of
the nine unsatisfactory reviews were
attributed, among other factors, to the
water pressure, or the user-perceived
force of the spray.3 Therefore, DOE
concludes that separating commercial
prerinse spray valves into product
classes based on spray force is justified,
because spray force is a performancerelated feature that affects consumer
utility, and spray force is strongly
correlated with flow rate.
To determine the number of product
classes, DOE tested and analyzed a wide
range of CPSV units on the market,
spanning multiple manufacturers, flow
rates, and spray shapes. Based on DOE’s
test data and additional market research,
DOE found that available CPSV units
could be differentiated into three
distinct spray force ranges. DOE
believes that each spray force range
represents a specific CPSV application.
This conclusion is supported by
comments submitted by T&S Brass to
the Framework document, suggesting
three product classes: (1) An ultra lowflow commercial prerinse spray valve
with a maximum flow rate of 0.8 gallons
per minute (gpm), (2) a low-flow
commercial prerinse spray valve with
flow rates of 0.8 to 1.28 gpm, and (3) a
standard commercial prerinse spray
valve with flow rates of 1.28 to 1.6 gpm.
(T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) Therefore, in
this NODA, DOE maintains the three
product classes presented in the CPSV
NOPR. However, based on feedback
from interested parties, DOE renames
the product classes as product class 1,
2, and 3 instead of using the
terminology ‘‘light-duty’’, ‘‘standardduty’’, and ‘‘heavy-duty,’’ respectively.
As defined, product class 1 provides
distinct utility for cleaning delicate
glassware and removing loose food
particles from dishware, product class 2
provides distinct utility for cleaning wet
foods, and product class 3 provides
distinct utility for cleaning baked-on
www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/; EPA
WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse
Spray Valves Supporting Statement. Version 1.0
available at https://www.epa.gov/watersense/
partners/prsv_final.html; Food Service Technology
Center test data for prerinse spray valves available
at www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/.
3 EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field
Study Report, at 24–25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available
at: www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_
study_report_033111v2_508.pdf).
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
72610
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
foods and preserving shower-type units,
which prevent splash-back.
For each of the product classes, DOE
determined the spray force ranges based
on the CPSV flow rate-spray force linear
relationship. Product class 1 includes
units with spray force less than or equal
to 5 ounce-force (ozf), product class 2
includes units with spray force greater
than 5 ozf but less than or equal to 8 ozf,
and product class 3 includes units with
spray force greater than 8 ozf. DOE
selected 8.0 ozf as the spray force cutoff between product class 2 and product
class 3 based on test results of
commercial prerinse spray valves with
shower-type spray shapes. DOE testing
showed that the upper range of the
market, in terms of flow rate,
predominantly includes shower-type
units. DOE found that the lowest tested
spray force of any shower-type unit was
8.1 ozf. Therefore, to maintain the
consumer utility provided by showertype units, DOE selected 8.0 ozf to
differentiate product class 3 units from
other commercial prerinse spray valves
available on the market. Additionally,
this spray force threshold is
corroborated by T&S Brass’s comments
to the Framework document suggesting
three product classes. T&S Brass
suggested a flow rate cut-off of 1.28 gpm
between the ‘‘low-flow’’ and ‘‘standard’’
commercial prerinse spray valves. (T&S
Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) The flow rate-spray
force linear relationship equates 1.28
gpm to 8.5 ozf. This spray force can be
conservatively rounded to 8.0 ozf.
DOE selected 5.0 ozf as the spray
force cut-off between product class 1
and product class 2 based on DOE’s test
data and market research, which clearly
showed a cluster of CPSV units above
and below that threshold. One cluster of
CPSV units had spray force ranges
between 4.1 and 4.8 ozf, and the other
cluster was between 5.5 and 7.7 ozf.
Therefore, DOE established the
threshold between the two classes at 5.0
ozf. This spray force threshold is
corroborated by T&S Brass’s comment to
the Framework document suggesting a
flow rate cut-off of 0.80 gpm between
the ‘‘ultra-low-flow’’ and ‘‘low-flow’’
commercial prerinse spray valves,
which equates to 5.3 ozf using the flow
rate-spray force linear relationship. This
spray force can be conservatively
rounded to 5.0 ozf.
While DOE acknowledges the
comments from interested parties
regarding DOE’s CPSV product class
structure, DOE maintains that all
available data and information from
manufacturers suggests that: (1) Flow
rate and spray force are strongly
correlated, and (2) CPSV units with
different flow rates or spray forces are
available in the market and provide
distinct consumer utility in the different
applications those units are designed to
serve. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE
has maintained the product class
structure presented in the NOPR, with
three product classes differentiated by
spray force.
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for
the NODA
In addition to the product class
structure, DOE received comments on a
number of assumptions in the
engineering analysis presented in the
NOPR. In response, DOE conducted
additional testing of CPSV units to
gather more data on the range of CPSV
products available in the market and
updated a number of the assumptions in
the NOPR engineering analysis.
Specifically, DOE’s revised updates
include the following:
• Based on new test data, DOE
updated the flow rate-spray force
relationship, which is presented in the
accompanying engineering spreadsheet.
• Although DOE has observed that for
product classes 1 and 2 there are
currently no CPSV units at the current
federal standard flow rate of 1.6 gpm,
DOE acknowledges that such units may
exist in the market. Therefore, DOE
updated the baseline flow rates for
product class 1 and 2 to be the current
federal standard flow rate of 1.6 gpm,
consistent with the baseline for product
class 3.
• Because the baseline levels for
product class 1 and 2 were updated,
DOE redefined EL 1 to represent the
least efficient CPSV unit within each
product class (i.e., the market
minimum). DOE defined the market
minimum levels to be the higher flow
rate of either (1) the tested least-efficient
unit or (2) the theoretical least-efficient
unit at the intersection of the flow ratespray force linear relationship and the
spray force bounds. In product class 1,
DOE identified the market minimum to
be 1.00 gpm, which is a tested unit with
a flow rate of 0.97 gpm, rounded-up to
a whole number. This is greater than the
theoretical flow rate at the intersection
of the flow rate-spray force linear
relationship and the spray force bound
of 5.0 ozf, which is 0.75 gpm. In product
class 2, DOE identified the market
minimum level to be 1.20 gpm, which
is the intersection of the flow rate-spray
force linear relationship and the 8.0 ozf
spray force bound.
• Based on new test data, DOE
revised the maximum technologicallyfeasible levels (i.e., max-tech) from 0.65,
0.97, and 1.24 gpm to 0.62, 0.73, and
1.13 gpm for product class 1, product
class 2 and product class 3, respectively.
• Based on the updates to the
baseline and max-tech levels, DOE
updated the intermediate flow rates for
product classes 1 and 2 to reflect a 15
percent and 25 percent improvement,
respectively, over the market minimum
efficiency. Table II.1 through Table II.3
provide the updated ELs for all product
classes.
TABLE II.1—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 1
[Spray force ≤ 5 ozf]
Flow rate
gpm
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Efficiency level
Description
Baseline ....................................................
Level 1 ......................................................
Level 2 ......................................................
Level 3 ......................................................
Level 4 ......................................................
Current Federal standard .............................................................................................
Market minimum ...........................................................................................................
15% improvement over market minimum ....................................................................
25% improvement over market minimum ....................................................................
Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) .............................................................
1.60
1.00
0.85
0.75
0.62
TABLE II.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 2
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf]
Flow rate
gpm
Efficiency level
Description
Baseline ....................................................
Current Federal standard .............................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00003
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
1.60
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
72611
TABLE II.2—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 2—Continued
[5 ozf < Spray force ≤ 8 ozf]
Efficiency level
Level
Level
Level
Level
1
2
3
4
Flow rate
gpm
Description
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
......................................................
Market minimum ...........................................................................................................
15% improvement over market minimum ....................................................................
25% improvement over market minimum ....................................................................
Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) .............................................................
1.20
1.02
0.90
0.73
TABLE II.3—EFFICIENCY LEVELS FOR CPSV PRODUCT CLASS 3
[Spray force > 8 ozf]
Flow rate
gpm
Efficiency level
Description
Baseline ....................................................
Level 1 ......................................................
Level 2 ......................................................
Level 3 ......................................................
Current Federal standard .............................................................................................
10% improvement over baseline .................................................................................
WaterSense level; 20% improvement over baseline ...................................................
Maximum technologically-feasible (max-tech) .............................................................
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period
Analysis
The life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback
period (PBP) analysis determines the
economic impact of potential standards
on individual consumers. The LCC is
the total cost of purchasing, installing
and operating a commercial prerinse
spray valve over the course of its
lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the
LCC of a commercial prerinse spray
valve designed to meet possible energy
conservation standards with the LCC of
a commercial prerinse spray valve likely
to be installed in the absence of
amended standards. DOE determines
LCCs by considering (1) total installed
cost to the consumer (which consists of
manufacturer selling price, distribution
chain markups, and sales taxes), (2) the
range of annual energy consumption of
commercial prerinse spray valves that
meet each of the ELs considered as they
are used in the field, (3) the operating
cost of commercial prerinse spray valves
(e.g., energy and water costs), (4) CPSV
lifetime, and (5) a discount rate that
reflects the real consumer cost of capital
and puts the LCC in present-value
terms.
The PBP represents the number of
years needed to recover the typically
increased purchase price of higherefficiency commercial prerinse spray
valves through savings in operating
costs. PBP is calculated by dividing the
incremental increase in installed cost of
the higher efficiency product, compared
to the baseline product, by the annual
savings in operating costs. In this
analysis, because more efficient
products do not cost more than baseline
efficiency products, the PBP is zero,
meaning that consumers do not have
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
any incremental product costs to
recover via lower operating costs.
For commercial prerinse spray valves,
DOE performed an energy and water use
analysis that calculated energy and
water use of commercial prerinse spray
valves at each EL within each product
class identified in the engineering
analysis. DOE determined the range of
annual energy consumption and annual
water consumption using the flow rate
of each EL within each product class
from the engineering analysis, the
average annual operating time, and the
energy required to heat a gallon of water
used at the commercial prerinse spray
valve. Recognizing that several inputs to
the determination of consumer LCC and
PBP are either variable or uncertain
(e.g., annual energy consumption,
product lifetime, electricity price,
discount rate), DOE conducts the LCC
and PBP analysis by modeling both the
uncertainty and variability in the inputs
using a Monte Carlo simulation and
probability distributions. The primary
outputs of the LCC and PBP analysis are
(1) average LCCs, (2) median PBPs, and
(3) the percentage of consumers that
experience a net cost for each product
class and EL. The average annual energy
consumption derived in the LCC
analysis is used as an input to the
National Impact Analysis (NIA).
C. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy
savings (NES), national water savings
(NWS), and the net present value (NPV)
of total consumer costs and savings
expected to result from potential new
standards at each trial standard level
(TSL). In this NODA, DOE provides
results for a total of five TSLs, one of
which uses an alternative shipments
scenario. TSLs 1 through 4 utilize a
PO 00000
Frm 00004
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
1.60
1.44
1.28
1.13
default shipments scenario similar to
the shipments scenario presented in the
NOPR, while TSL 4a utilizes the
alternative shipments scenario. The
default and alternative shipments
scenarios are discussed later in this
section.
The TSLs analyzed in this NODA are
shown in Table II.4. These TSLs were
chosen based on the following criteria:
• TSL 1 represents the first EL above
the market minimum for each product
class. That is, for product classes 1 and
2, TSL 1 represents EL 2 which is a 15
percent savings above the market
minimum. For product class 3, TSL 1
represents EL 1 which is a 10 percent
savings above the market minimum
(which is also the Federal standard
level).
• TSL 2 represents the second EL
above market minimum for each
product class. That is, for product
classes 1 and 2, TSL 2 represents EL 3
which is a 25 percent savings above the
market minimum. For product class 3,
TSL 3 represents the WaterSense level,
or 20 percent savings above the market
minimum (i.e., the Federal standard).
• TSL 3 represents the minimum flow
rates for each product class that would
not induce consumers to switch product
classes as a result of a standard at those
flow rates (as discussed in the CPSV
NOPR), and retains shower-type
designs. That is, DOE selected the
lowest flow rates that would allow
consumers to maintain provided utility
without purchasing units from a
different product class. As discussed in
section II.A, DOE believes that spray
force and flow rate are strongly
correlated and that specific flow ratespray force combinations represent
distinct utility in the market. Therefore,
DOE analyzed TSL 3, which exhibits no
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
72612
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
product class switching, as the TSL that
maintains customer utility and
availability of products in the
marketplace.
• TSL 4 represents max-tech for all
product classes under the default
shipments scenario, which assumes the
total volume of shipments does not
change as a function of the standard
level selected. Consumers in product
classes 1 and 2 would purchase a
compliant CPSV model with flow rates
most similar to the flow rate they would
purchase in the absence of a standard.
This TSL assumes that purchasers of
shower-type commercial prerinse spray
valves would transition to single orifice
CPSV models but recognizes that the
utility or usability of compliant CPSV
models in those applications may be
impacted.
• TSL 4a represents max-tech for all
product classes under an alternative
shipments scenario. Since the utility of
single-orifice CPSV models may not be
equivalent in some applications that
previously used shower-type CPSV, this
alternative shipments scenario analyzes
the case where, rather than accepting
the decreased usability of a compliant
CPSV model, consumers of shower-type
units instead exit the CPSV market and
purchase faucets, which have a
maximum flow rate of 2.2 gpm under
the current federal standard. Thus,
shipments of compliant CPSV models
are much lower under this TSL and
water consumption higher due to
increased faucet shipments.
TABLE II.4—EFFICIENCY LEVELS BY PRODUCT CLASS AND TSL
TSL
Product class 1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
1 ..............................................................................................
2 ..............................................................................................
3 ..............................................................................................
4 ..............................................................................................
4a ............................................................................................
The reported NIA results, in section
III.B, reflect the additional testing of
units DOE conducted after the NOPR (as
discussed in section II.A), and include
updated product allocations by product
class and EL, as well as updated data
sources.
DOE calculated NES, NWS, and NPV
for each TSL as the difference between
a no-new-standards case scenario
(without amended standards) and the
standards case scenario (with amended
standards). Cumulative energy savings
are the sum of the annual NES
determined over the lifetime of
commercial prerinse spray valves
shipped during the analysis period.
Energy savings reported include the
full-fuel cycle energy savings (i.e.,
includes the energy needed to extract,
process, and deliver primary fuel
sources such as coal and natural gas,
and the conversion and distribution
losses of generating electricity from
those fuel sources). Similarly,
cumulative water savings are the sum of
the annual NWS determined over the
lifetime of commercial prerinse spray
valves shipped during the analysis
period. The NPV is the sum over time
of the discounted net savings each year,
which consists of the difference
between total operating cost savings and
any changes in total installed costs. NPV
results are reported for discount rates of
3 percent and 7 percent. Under the
alternative shipments scenario, DOE
accounts for the energy and water use of
CPSV models that remain within the
scope of this rule and also accounts for
the change in energy or water use for
consumers that chose to exit the CPSV
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
Product class 2
2
3
1
4
4
2
3
1
4
4
market, and instead purchase faucets, as
a result of the standard. As a result,
realized savings resulting from TSL 4a
are reduced compared to savings for
TSL 4 under the default shipments
scenario.
To calculate the NES, NWS, and NPV,
DOE projected future shipments and
efficiency distributions (for each TSL)
for each CPSV product class. After
further research and consideration of
public comments regarding product
shipments (T&S, No. 23 at pp. 81), DOE
updated its shipments projections from
the NOPR to more accurately
characterize the CPSV market. The most
significant update was allocating more
of the overall market share to product
class 3 relative to product classes 1 and
2 in the default shipments scenario, and
the modeling of an alternative
shipments scenario where consumers of
shower-type CPSV models do not
purchase compliant CPSV models in the
standards case and, instead, leave the
CPSV market altogether and purchase
faucets. Other inputs to the NIA include
the estimated CPSV lifetime, final
installed costs, and average annual
energy and water consumption per unit
from the LCC. For detailed NIA results,
see Table III.4 and Table III.5.
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
For the manufacturer impact analysis
(MIA), DOE used the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to
assess the economic impact of potential
standards on CPSV manufacturers. DOE
developed key industry average
financial parameters for the GRIM using
publicly available data from corporate
annual reports. Additionally, DOE used
PO 00000
Frm 00005
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Shipments
scenario
Product class 3
1
2
2
3
3
Default.
Default.
Default.
Default.
Alternate.
this and other publicly available
information to estimate and account for
the aggregate industry investment in
capital expenditures and research and
development required to produce
compliant products at each EL.
The GRIM uses this information in
conjunction with inputs from other
analyses including MPCs from the
engineering analysis, shipments from
the shipments analysis, and price trends
from the NIA to model industry annual
cash flows from the base year through
the end of the analysis period. The
primary quantitative output of this
model is the industry net present value
(INPV), which DOE calculates as the
sum of industry cash flows discounted
to the present day using industry
specific weighted average costs of
capital.
Standards affect INPV by requiring
manufacturers to make investments in
manufacturing capital and product
development, and by a change in the
number of shipments. Under potential
standards, DOE expects that
manufacturers may lose a portion of
their INPV, which is calculated as the
difference between INPV in the no-newstandards case and in the standards
case. DOE examines a range of possible
impacts on industry by modeling
scenarios with various levels of
investment.
III. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
Table III.1 through Table III.3 provide
LCC and PBP results for all ELs and the
corresponding TSLs discussed in
section II.C.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
72613
TABLE III.1—PRODUCT CLASS 1 LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Product class 1 (spray force ≤ 5 ozf)
Average costs
2014$
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
— ..............................................................
3 ...............................................................
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
4, 4a .........................................................
0
1
2
3
4
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
780
487
414
366
302
3,566
2,229
1,895
1,672
1,382
76
76
76
76
76
LCC *
Simple
payback
period
years
3,643
2,305
1,971
1,748
1,458
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
* The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the
LCCs for each EL to be compared under the same conditions.
TABLE III.2—PRODUCT CLASS 2 LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Product class 2 (spray force > 5 ozf and ≤ 8 ozf)
Average costs
2014$
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
— ..............................................................
3 ...............................................................
1 ...............................................................
2 ...............................................................
4, 4a .........................................................
0
1
2
3
4
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
780
585
497
439
356
3,566
2,675
2,274
2,006
1,627
76
76
76
76
76
LCC *
Simple
payback
period
years
3,643
2,751
2,350
2,082
1,704
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
* The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the
LCCs for each EL to be compared under the same conditions.
TABLE III.3—PRODUCT CLASS 3 LCC AND PBP RESULTS
Product class 3 (spray force > 8 ozf)
Average costs
2014$
TSL
Efficiency level
Installed cost
— ..............................................................
1 ...............................................................
2, 3 ...........................................................
4 ** ............................................................
0
1
2
3
First year’s
operating cost
Lifetime
operating cost
780
702
624
551
3,566
3,210
2,853
2,519
76
76
76
76
LCC *
Simple
payback
period
years
3,643
3,286
2,929
2,595
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
* The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the
LCCs for each EL to be compared under the same conditions.
** LCC results are not presented for TSL 4a since the analysis assumes those consumers have left the CPSV market.
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
Table III.4 provides energy and water
impacts associated with each TSL. Table
III.5 provides NPV results.
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
TABLE III.4—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048
TSL
National energy savings
quads *
Product class
Primary
1 ......................................
National water
savings
billion gal
FFC
0.008
0.113
(0.082)
0.009
0.123
(0.089)
10.831
144.916
(105.275)
TOTAL TSL 1 .........................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................
0.039
0.043
50.471
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00006
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
72614
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
TABLE III.4—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NATIONAL ENERGY AND WATER SAVINGS FOR
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048—Continued
TSL
National energy savings
quads *
Product class
Primary
2 ......................................
National water
savings
billion gal
FFC
10.831
311.926
(210.875)
0.087
0.095
111.882
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................
0.000
0.000
0.093
0.000
0.000
0.101
0.000
0.000
119.572
0.093
0.101
119.572
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................
0.059
0.196
(0.092)
0.064
0.212
(0.100)
75.815
250.516
(118.272)
TOTAL TSL 4 .........................................................
0.163
0.176
208.059
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................
0.059
0.196
(0.463)
0.064
0.212
(0.502)
75.815
250.516
(593.418)
TOTAL TSL 4a .......................................................
4a ....................................
0.009
0.264
(0.179)
TOTAL TSL 3 .........................................................
4 ......................................
0.008
0.244
(0.165)
TOTAL TSL 2 .........................................................
3 ......................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ..............................................
3 (>8 ozf) ................................................................
(0.208)
(0.226)
(267.087)
* quads = quadrillion British thermal units.
TABLE III.5—COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES: CUMULATIVE NET PRESENT VALUE OF CONSUMER BENEFITS FOR
PRODUCTS SHIPPED IN 2019–2048
Net present value
billion $2014
TSL
Product class
7-Percent
discount rate
1 ..................................................
3-Percent
discount rate
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
$0.623
1 (≤5 ozf) ........................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ........................................................................................
$0.067
$1.924
($1.319)
$0.137
$3.943
($2.699)
$0.672
$1.381
1 (≤5 ozf) ........................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ........................................................................................
$0.000
$0.000
$0.718
$0.000
$0.000
$1.476
$0.718
$1.476
1 (≤5 ozf) ........................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ........................................................................................
$0.473
$1.539
($0.763)
$0.968
$3.156
($1.557)
TOTAL TSL 4 .................................................................................
$1.249
$2.568
1 (≤5 ozf) ........................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ........................................................................................
$0.473
$1.539
($3.616)
$0.968
$3.156
($7.421)
TOTAL TSL 4a ...............................................................................
4a * ..............................................
$0.303
TOTAL TSL 3 .................................................................................
4 ..................................................
$0.137
$1.828
($1.342)
TOTAL TSL 2 .................................................................................
3 ..................................................
$0.067
$0.892
($0.656)
TOTAL TSL 1 .................................................................................
2 ..................................................
1 (≤5 ozf) ........................................................................................
2 (>5 ozf and ≤8 ozf) ......................................................................
3 (>8 ozf) ........................................................................................
($1.604)
($3.297)
* In TSL 4a, DOE assumed that the installed costs for faucets and commercial prerinse spray valves are equal.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00007
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
Table III.6 provides manufacturer
impacts under the sourced materials
conversion cost scenario. Table III.7
provides manufacturer impacts under
72615
the fabricated materials conversion cost
scenario.
TABLE III.6—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES UNDER THE SOURCED
MATERIALS CONVERSION COST SCENARIO
No-newstandards
case
Units
INPV .................
Change in INPV
($).
Change in INPV
(%).
Product Conversion Costs.
Capital Conversion Costs.
Total Investment
Required.
Trial standard level
1
2
3
4
4a
2014$ MM .......
2014$ MM .......
8.6
........................
7.7
(0.8)
7.5
(1.1)
8.0
(0.6)
7.1
(1.5)
5.0
(3.6)
% .....................
........................
(9.9)
(12.8)
(6.5)
(17.4)
(41.8)
2014$ MM .......
........................
1.5
1.8
0.8
2.4
2.4
2014$ MM .......
........................
0.1
0.2
0.2
0.2
0.2
2014$ MM .......
........................
1.6
2.0
1.0
2.6
2.6
TABLE III.7—MANUFACTURER IMPACT ANALYSIS FOR COMMERCIAL PRERINSE SPRAY VALVES UNDER THE FABRICATED
MATERIALS CONVERSION COST SCENARIO
No-newstandards
case
Units
INPV .................
Change in INPV
($).
Change in INPV
(%).
Product Conversion Costs.
Capital Conversion Costs.
Total Investment
Required.
Trial standard level
1
2
4a
8.6
........................
7.1
(1.5)
6.7
(1.8)
7.4
(1.1)
6.2
(2.4)
4.1
(4.5)
% .....................
........................
(17.5)
(21.4)
(13.1)
(28.0)
(52.3)
2014$ MM .......
........................
1.5
1.8
0.8
2.4
2.4
2014$ MM .......
........................
0.8
1.0
0.8
1.2
1.2
2014$ MM .......
........................
2.3
2.8
1.6
3.6
3.6
DOE Building Technologies staff. Your
contact information will not be publicly
While DOE is not requesting
viewable except for your first and last
comments on specific portions of the
names, organization name (if any), and
analysis, DOE is interested in receiving
comments on all aspects of the data and submitter representative name (if any).
If your comment is not processed
analysis presented in the NODA and
properly because of technical
supporting documentation that can be
found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/ difficulties, DOE will use this
information to contact you. If DOE
buildings/appliance_standards/
cannot read your comment due to
product.aspx/productid/54.
technical difficulties and cannot contact
A. Submission of Comments
you for clarification, DOE may not be
DOE will accept comments, data, and able to consider your comment.
information regarding this notice no
However, your contact information
later than the date provided in the DATES will be publicly viewable if you include
section at the beginning of this notice.
it in the comment itself or in any
Interested parties may submit
documents attached to your comment.
comments, data, and other information
Any information that you do not want
using any of the methods described in
to be publicly viewable should not be
the ADDRESSES section at the beginning
included in your comment, nor in any
of this notice.
document attached to your comment.
Otherwise, persons viewing comments
Submitting comments via
will see only first and last names,
www.regulations.gov. The
organization names, correspondence
www.regulations.gov Web page will
containing comments, and any
require you to provide your name and
documents submitted with the
contact information. Your contact
comments.
information will only be viewable to
VerDate Sep<11>2014
4
2014$ MM .......
2014$ MM .......
IV. Public Participation
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
3
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
PO 00000
Frm 00008
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov
information for which disclosure is
restricted by statute, such as trade
secrets and commercial or financial
information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information
(CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed
as CBI. Comments received through the
Web site will waive any CBI claims for
the information submitted. For
information on submitting CBI, see the
Confidential Business Information
section below.
DOE processes submissions made
through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be
posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of
comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not
be viewable for up to several weeks.
Please keep the comment tracking
number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully
uploaded your comment.
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
72616
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 / Proposed Rules
Submitting comments via email, hand
delivery/courier, or mail. Comments and
documents submitted via email, hand
delivery, or mail will also be posted to
www.regulations.gov. If you do not want
your personal contact information to be
publicly viewable, do not include it in
your comment or any accompanying
documents. Instead, provide your
contact information in a cover letter.
Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and
optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as
long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time
you submit comments, data, documents,
and other information to DOE. If you
submit via mail or hand delivery/
courier, please provide all items on a
CD, if feasible, in which case it is not
necessary to submit printed copies. No
facsimiles (faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other
information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in
portable document format (PDF)
(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel,
WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file format.
Provide documents that are not secured,
that are written in English, and that are
free of any defects or viruses.
Documents should not contain special
characters or any form of encryption
and, if possible, they should carry the
electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit
campaign form letters by the originating
organization in batches of between 50
and 500 form letters per PDF or as one
form letter with a list of supporters’
names compiled into one or more PDFs.
This reduces comment processing and
posting time.
Confidential Business Information.
Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any person
submitting information that he or she
believes to be confidential and exempt
by law from public disclosure should
submit two well-marked copies: One
copy of the document marked
‘‘confidential’’ including all the
information believed to be confidential,
and one copy of the document marked
‘‘non-confidential’’ with the information
believed to be confidential deleted.
Submit these documents via email or on
a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own
determination about the confidential
status of the information and treat it
according to its determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when
evaluating requests to treat submitted
information as confidential include: (1)
A description of the items, (2) whether
and why such items are customarily
treated as confidential within the
industry, (3) whether the information is
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:58 Nov 19, 2015
Jkt 238001
generally known by or available from
other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made
available to others without obligation
concerning its confidentiality, (5) an
explanation of the competitive injury to
the submitting person which would
result from public disclosure, (6) when
such information might lose its
confidential character due to the
passage of time, and (7) why disclosure
of the information would be contrary to
the public interest.
It is DOE’s policy that all comments
may be included in the public docket,
without change and as received,
including any personal information
provided in the comments (except
information deemed to be exempt from
public disclosure).
V. Approval of the Office of the
Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved
publication of this notice of data
availability.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November
16, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy
Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and Renewable
Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015–29676 Filed 11–19–15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450–01–P
FEDERAL ELECTION COMMISSION
11 CFR Part 110
[Notice 2015–11]
Candidate Debates
Federal Election Commission.
Notice of Disposition of Petition
for Rulemaking.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
The Commission announces
its disposition of a Petition for
Rulemaking (‘‘petition’’) filed on
September 11, 2014, by Level the
Playing Field. The petition asks the
Commission to amend its regulation on
candidate debates to revise the criteria
governing the inclusion of candidates in
presidential and vice presidential
candidate debates. The Commission is
not initiating a rulemaking at this time.
DATES: November 20, 2015.
ADDRESSES: The petition and other
documents relating to this matter are
available on the Commission’s Web site,
www.fec.gov/fosers (reference REG
2014–06), and in the Commission’s
Public Records Office, 999 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20463.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr.
Robert M. Knop, Assistant General
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00009
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Counsel, or Ms. Jessica Selinkoff,
Attorney, 999 E Street NW.,
Washington, DC 20463, (202) 694–1650
or (800) 424–9530.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On
September 11, 2014, the Commission
received a Petition for Rulemaking from
Level the Playing Field regarding the
Commission’s regulation at 11 CFR
110.13(c). That regulation governs the
criteria that debate staging organizations
(which the petitioner refers to as
‘‘sponsors’’) use for inclusion in
candidate debates. The regulation
requires staging organizations to ‘‘use
pre-established objective criteria to
determine which candidates may
participate in a debate’’ and further
specifies that, for general election
debates, staging organizations ‘‘shall not
use nomination by a particular political
party as the sole objective criterion to
determine whether to include a
candidate in a debate.’’ 11 CFR
110.13(c). The petition asks the
Commission to amend 11 CFR 110.13(c)
in two respects: (1) To preclude
sponsors of general election presidential
and vice presidential debates from
requiring that a candidate meet a polling
threshold in order to be included in the
debate; and (2) to require sponsors of
general election presidential and vice
presidential debates to have a set of
objective, unbiased criteria for debate
participation that do not require
candidates to satisfy a polling threshold.
The Commission published a Notice
of Availability seeking comment on the
petition on November 14, 2014.
Candidate Debates, 79 FR 68137. The
Commission received 1264 comments in
response to that notice. One comment,
that of an organization that stages
presidential and vice presidential
debates, opposed the petition; the
remaining comments either supported
the petition or took no position thereon.
The petition and many of the
comments supporting it argue that a
staging organization’s requirement that a
candidate meet a polling threshold for
inclusion in a debate unfairly benefits
major party candidates at the expense of
independent and third party candidates.
As an alternative, the petition and some
of the comments proposed requiring
staging organizations to include each
candidate who has qualified for the
general election ballot in states that
collectively have enough Electoral
College votes for the candidate to attain
the presidency.1 The petition states that
1 Specifically, the petitioner proposes that a
presidential candidate who, at a given date during
the election year, has secured ballot access in states
that collectively have at least 270 Electoral College
votes (of a total possible 538 votes), could
E:\FR\FM\20NOP1.SGM
20NOP1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 224 (Friday, November 20, 2015)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 72608-72616]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-29676]
========================================================================
Proposed Rules
Federal Register
________________________________________________________________________
This section of the FEDERAL REGISTER contains notices to the public of
the proposed issuance of rules and regulations. The purpose of these
notices is to give interested persons an opportunity to participate in
the rule making prior to the adoption of the final rules.
========================================================================
Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 224 / Friday, November 20, 2015 /
Proposed Rules
[[Page 72608]]
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
10 CFR Parts 429 and 431
[Docket Number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027]
RIN 1904-AD31
Energy Conservation Standards for Commercial Prerinse Spray
Valves: Availability of Provisional Analysis Tools
AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, Department of
Energy.
ACTION: Notice of data availability (NODA); withdrawal and
republication.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) is withdrawing and
republishing the Notice of Data Availability (NODA) published in the
Federal Register on November 12, 2015 (80 FR 69888) due to errors in
that published document. DOE is republishing this document in its
entirety. DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) for the
commercial prerinse spray valve (CPSV) energy conservation standards
rulemaking on July 9, 2015. In response to comments on the NOPR, DOE
has revised its analyses. This NODA announces the availability of those
updated analyses and results, and gives interested parties an
opportunity to comment on these analyses and submit additional data.
The NODA analysis is publicly available on the DOE Web site.
DATES: DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
NODA submitted no later than December 4, 2015. See section IV, ``Public
Participation,'' for details.
ADDRESSES: Any comments submitted must identify the NODA for Energy
Conservation Standards for commercial prerinse spray valves, and
provide docket number EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027 and/or regulatory
information number (RIN) number 1904-AD31. Comments may be submitted
using any of the following methods:
1. Federal eRulemaking Portal: www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
2. Email: SprayValves2014STD0027@ee.doe.gov. Include the docket
number and/or RIN in the subject line of the message. Submit electronic
comments in WordPerfect, Microsoft Word, PDF, or ASCII file format, and
avoid the use of special characters or any form of encryption.
3. Postal Mail: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of Energy,
Building Technologies Office, Mailstop EE-5B, 1000 Independence Avenue
SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. If possible, please submit all items on
a CD, in which case it is not necessary to include printed copies.
4. Hand Delivery/Courier: Ms. Brenda Edwards, U.S. Department of
Energy, Building Technologies Office, 950 L'Enfant Plaza SW., Suite
600, Washington, DC 20024. Telephone: (202) 586-2945. If possible,
please submit all items on a CD, in which case it is not necessary to
include printed copies.
No faxes will be accepted. For detailed instructions on submitting
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see
section IV of this document (``Public Participation'').
Docket: The docket, which includes Federal Register notices, public
meeting attendee lists and transcripts, comments, and other supporting
documents/materials, is available for review at www.regulations.gov.
All documents in the docket are listed in the www.regulations.gov
index. However, some documents listed in the index, such as those
containing information that is exempt from public disclosure, may not
be publicly available.
A link to the docket Web page can be found at:
www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/rulemaking.aspx?ruleid=100. This Web page will contain a link to the
docket for this notice on the www.regulations.gov site. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will contain simple instructions on how to
access all documents, including public comments, in the docket. See
section IV, ``Public Participation,'' for further information on how to
submit comments through www.regulations.gov.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Mr. James Raba, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Energy Efficiency
and Renewable Energy, Building Technologies Office, EE-5B, 1000
Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-0121. Telephone: (202)
586-8654. Email: SprayValves2014STD0027@ee.doe.gov.
Mr. Peter Cochran, U.S. Department of Energy, Office of the General
Counsel, GC-33, 1000 Independence Avenue SW., Washington, DC 20585-
0121. Telephone: (202) 586-9496. Email: Peter.Cochran@hq.doe.gov.
For further information on how to submit a comment, review other public
comments and the docket, or participate in the public meeting, contact
Ms. Brenda Edwards at (202) 586-2945 or by email:
Brenda.Edwards@ee.doe.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. Background
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by the Department of Energy
A. Engineering Analysis
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the NODA
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
C. National Impact Analysis
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
III. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
IV. Public Participation
A. Submission of Comments
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
I. Background
DOE published a notice of proposed rulemaking (NOPR) proposing
amended energy conservation standards for commercial prerinse spray
valves (CPSVs) on July 9, 2015 (CPSV NOPR). 80 FR 39485. The CPSV NOPR
proposed new CPSV product classes based on spray force, and presented
results for the engineering analysis, economic analyses, and proposed
standard levels. DOE held a public meeting on July 28, 2015 to present
the CPSV NOPR. At the public meeting, and during the comment period,
DOE received comments on various aspects of the CPSV NOPR.
In response to these comments, DOE has revised the analyses
presented in the CPSV NOPR. This notice of data availability (NODA)
announces the
[[Page 72609]]
availability of those updated analyses and results and invites
interested parties to submit comments on these analyses or additional
data. DOE may further revise the analysis presented in this rulemaking
based on any new or updated information or data it obtains during the
course of the rulemaking. DOE encourages stakeholders to provide any
additional data or information that may improve the analysis.
II. Summary of the Analyses Performed by the Department of Energy
DOE conducted analyses of commercial prerinse spray valves in the
following areas: (1) Engineering, (2) manufacturer impacts, (3) life-
cycle cost and payback period, and (4) national impacts. The
spreadsheet tools used in preparing these analyses are available at:
https://www.regulations.gov/#!docketDetail;D=EERE-2014-BT-STD-0027. Each
individual spreadsheet includes an introduction describing the various
inputs and outputs for the analysis, as well as operation instructions.
A brief description of each of these analysis tools is provided below.
The key aspects of the present analyses and DOE's updates to the CPSV
NOPR analyses are described in the following sections.
A. Engineering Analysis
The engineering analysis establishes the relationship between the
manufacturer production cost (MPC) and efficiency levels (ELs) for each
product class of commercial prerinse spray valves. This relationship
serves as the basis for cost-benefit calculations performed in the
other three analysis tools for individual consumers, manufacturers, and
the nation.
In the CPSV NOPR, DOE proposed three product classes that were
delineated by spray force. DOE analyzed several ELs associated with
specific flow rates for each product class. DOE received feedback from
interested parties opposing the three product class structure and
recommending a single product class. (Chicago Faucets, No. 26 at pp. 1-
2; \1\ PMI, No. 27 at p. 1; Fisher, No. 30 at p. 1; ASAP, NEEA, NRDC,
No. 32 at p. 1; PG&E, SCE, SCGC, SDG&E, No. 34 at p. 1-2; AWE, No. 28
at p. 7; and T&S Brass, No. 33 at p. 2)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ A notation in this form provides a reference for information
that is in DOE's rulemaking docket to amend energy conservation
standards for commercial prerinse spray valves (Docket No. EERE-
2014-BT-STD-0027, which is maintained at www.regulations.gov). This
particular notation refers to a comment from Chicago Faucets on pp.
1-2 of document number 6 in the docket.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOE is required by EPCA to consider performance-related features
that justify different standard levels, such as features affecting
customer utility, when establishing or amending energy conservation
standards. 42 U.S.C. 6295(q)) In response to comments from interested
parties, DOE reviewed the market for commercial prerinse spray valves
and available data regarding their typical performance and usage
characteristics in different applications.
DOE market research shows that commercial prerinse spray valves
have a range of flow rates, spray forces, and spray shapes. For
example, manufacturers market commercial prerinse spray valves at lower
flow rates with specific terminology such as ``ultra-low-flow'' or
``low-flow'' spray valves, indicating that there are diverse products
available to satisfy different consumer needs when selecting commercial
prerinse spray valves. Conversely, for commercial prerinse spray valves
at higher flow rates, DOE has predominately observed shower-type units.
Shower-type units contain multiple orifices, as opposed to the more
traditional, single-orifice CPSV unit. In the CPSV NOPR public meeting,
T&S Brass stated that consumer satisfaction is very high at the upper
range of the market flow rate distribution, and that the shower-type
commercial prerinse spray valves in the upper range of the market flow
rate distribution represent the majority of the market and highest
level of customer satisfaction because these units prevent splash-back.
(T&S, No. 23 at pp. 42-43) T&S Brass also commented that there are
several applications of commercial prerinse spray valves, and all may
require different spray forces. (T&S Brass, No. 6 at p. 39) Based on
the above information, DOE believes that the CPSV market offers a
variety of prerinse spray valves that have different design features
and different end-user applications.
Additionally, DOE found a strong linear relationship between spray
force and flow rate, indicating that spray force is an important
performance-related feature that affects consumer utility. The
relationship between spray force and flow rate is presented in the
engineering spreadsheet accompanying this NODA. DOE constructed the
flow rate-spray force relationship using data primarily from DOE
testing, and supplementary data from DOE's Compliance Certification
Management System (CCMS), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's
(EPA) WaterSense[supreg] program, and Food Service Technology Center
(FSTC) reports.\2\ Additionally, DOE's research shows that spray force
relates to user satisfaction. A WaterSense field study found that low
water pressure, or spray force, is a source of user dissatisfaction.
WaterSense evaluated 14 commercial prerinse spray valve models and
collected 56 consumer satisfaction reviews, of which 9 indicated
unsatisfactory performance. Seven of the nine unsatisfactory reviews
were attributed, among other factors, to the water pressure, or the
user-perceived force of the spray.\3\ Therefore, DOE concludes that
separating commercial prerinse spray valves into product classes based
on spray force is justified, because spray force is a performance-
related feature that affects consumer utility, and spray force is
strongly correlated with flow rate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ DOE compliance certification data for commercial prerinse
spray valves available at www.regulations.doe.gov/certification-data/; EPA WaterSense Specification for Commercial Pre-Rinse Spray
Valves Supporting Statement. Version 1.0 available at https://www.epa.gov/watersense/partners/prsv_final.html; Food Service
Technology Center test data for prerinse spray valves available at
www.fishnick.com/equipment/sprayvalves/.
\3\ EPA WaterSense, Prerinse Spray Valves Field Study Report, at
24-25 (Mar. 31, 2011) (Available at: www.epa.gov/watersense/docs/final_epa_prsv_study_report_033111v2_508.pdf).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To determine the number of product classes, DOE tested and analyzed
a wide range of CPSV units on the market, spanning multiple
manufacturers, flow rates, and spray shapes. Based on DOE's test data
and additional market research, DOE found that available CPSV units
could be differentiated into three distinct spray force ranges. DOE
believes that each spray force range represents a specific CPSV
application. This conclusion is supported by comments submitted by T&S
Brass to the Framework document, suggesting three product classes: (1)
An ultra low-flow commercial prerinse spray valve with a maximum flow
rate of 0.8 gallons per minute (gpm), (2) a low-flow commercial
prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 0.8 to 1.28 gpm, and (3) a
standard commercial prerinse spray valve with flow rates of 1.28 to 1.6
gpm. (T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) Therefore, in this NODA, DOE maintains
the three product classes presented in the CPSV NOPR. However, based on
feedback from interested parties, DOE renames the product classes as
product class 1, 2, and 3 instead of using the terminology ``light-
duty'', ``standard-duty'', and ``heavy-duty,'' respectively. As
defined, product class 1 provides distinct utility for cleaning
delicate glassware and removing loose food particles from dishware,
product class 2 provides distinct utility for cleaning wet foods, and
product class 3 provides distinct utility for cleaning baked-on
[[Page 72610]]
foods and preserving shower-type units, which prevent splash-back.
For each of the product classes, DOE determined the spray force
ranges based on the CPSV flow rate-spray force linear relationship.
Product class 1 includes units with spray force less than or equal to 5
ounce-force (ozf), product class 2 includes units with spray force
greater than 5 ozf but less than or equal to 8 ozf, and product class 3
includes units with spray force greater than 8 ozf. DOE selected 8.0
ozf as the spray force cut-off between product class 2 and product
class 3 based on test results of commercial prerinse spray valves with
shower-type spray shapes. DOE testing showed that the upper range of
the market, in terms of flow rate, predominantly includes shower-type
units. DOE found that the lowest tested spray force of any shower-type
unit was 8.1 ozf. Therefore, to maintain the consumer utility provided
by shower-type units, DOE selected 8.0 ozf to differentiate product
class 3 units from other commercial prerinse spray valves available on
the market. Additionally, this spray force threshold is corroborated by
T&S Brass's comments to the Framework document suggesting three product
classes. T&S Brass suggested a flow rate cut-off of 1.28 gpm between
the ``low-flow'' and ``standard'' commercial prerinse spray valves.
(T&S Brass, No. 12 at p. 3) The flow rate-spray force linear
relationship equates 1.28 gpm to 8.5 ozf. This spray force can be
conservatively rounded to 8.0 ozf.
DOE selected 5.0 ozf as the spray force cut-off between product
class 1 and product class 2 based on DOE's test data and market
research, which clearly showed a cluster of CPSV units above and below
that threshold. One cluster of CPSV units had spray force ranges
between 4.1 and 4.8 ozf, and the other cluster was between 5.5 and 7.7
ozf. Therefore, DOE established the threshold between the two classes
at 5.0 ozf. This spray force threshold is corroborated by T&S Brass's
comment to the Framework document suggesting a flow rate cut-off of
0.80 gpm between the ``ultra-low-flow'' and ``low-flow'' commercial
prerinse spray valves, which equates to 5.3 ozf using the flow rate-
spray force linear relationship. This spray force can be conservatively
rounded to 5.0 ozf.
While DOE acknowledges the comments from interested parties
regarding DOE's CPSV product class structure, DOE maintains that all
available data and information from manufacturers suggests that: (1)
Flow rate and spray force are strongly correlated, and (2) CPSV units
with different flow rates or spray forces are available in the market
and provide distinct consumer utility in the different applications
those units are designed to serve. Therefore, in this NODA, DOE has
maintained the product class structure presented in the NOPR, with
three product classes differentiated by spray force.
1. Summary of Engineering Updates for the NODA
In addition to the product class structure, DOE received comments
on a number of assumptions in the engineering analysis presented in the
NOPR. In response, DOE conducted additional testing of CPSV units to
gather more data on the range of CPSV products available in the market
and updated a number of the assumptions in the NOPR engineering
analysis. Specifically, DOE's revised updates include the following:
Based on new test data, DOE updated the flow rate-spray
force relationship, which is presented in the accompanying engineering
spreadsheet.
Although DOE has observed that for product classes 1 and 2
there are currently no CPSV units at the current federal standard flow
rate of 1.6 gpm, DOE acknowledges that such units may exist in the
market. Therefore, DOE updated the baseline flow rates for product
class 1 and 2 to be the current federal standard flow rate of 1.6 gpm,
consistent with the baseline for product class 3.
Because the baseline levels for product class 1 and 2 were
updated, DOE redefined EL 1 to represent the least efficient CPSV unit
within each product class (i.e., the market minimum). DOE defined the
market minimum levels to be the higher flow rate of either (1) the
tested least-efficient unit or (2) the theoretical least-efficient unit
at the intersection of the flow rate-spray force linear relationship
and the spray force bounds. In product class 1, DOE identified the
market minimum to be 1.00 gpm, which is a tested unit with a flow rate
of 0.97 gpm, rounded-up to a whole number. This is greater than the
theoretical flow rate at the intersection of the flow rate-spray force
linear relationship and the spray force bound of 5.0 ozf, which is 0.75
gpm. In product class 2, DOE identified the market minimum level to be
1.20 gpm, which is the intersection of the flow rate-spray force linear
relationship and the 8.0 ozf spray force bound.
Based on new test data, DOE revised the maximum
technologically-feasible levels (i.e., max-tech) from 0.65, 0.97, and
1.24 gpm to 0.62, 0.73, and 1.13 gpm for product class 1, product class
2 and product class 3, respectively.
Based on the updates to the baseline and max-tech levels,
DOE updated the intermediate flow rates for product classes 1 and 2 to
reflect a 15 percent and 25 percent improvement, respectively, over the
market minimum efficiency. Table II.1 through Table II.3 provide the
updated ELs for all product classes.
Table II.1--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 1
[Spray force <= 5 ozf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Description Flow rate gpm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Current Federal 1.60
standard.
Level 1........................ Market minimum......... 1.00
Level 2........................ 15% improvement over 0.85
market minimum.
Level 3........................ 25% improvement over 0.75
market minimum.
Level 4........................ Maximum technologically- 0.62
feasible (max-tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.2--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 2
[5 ozf < Spray force <= 8 ozf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Description Flow rate gpm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Current Federal 1.60
standard.
[[Page 72611]]
Level 1........................ Market minimum......... 1.20
Level 2........................ 15% improvement over 1.02
market minimum.
Level 3........................ 25% improvement over 0.90
market minimum.
Level 4........................ Maximum technologically- 0.73
feasible (max-tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table II.3--Efficiency Levels for CPSV Product Class 3
[Spray force > 8 ozf]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Efficiency level Description Flow rate gpm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline....................... Current Federal 1.60
standard.
Level 1........................ 10% improvement over 1.44
baseline.
Level 2........................ WaterSense level; 20% 1.28
improvement over
baseline.
Level 3........................ Maximum technologically- 1.13
feasible (max-tech).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Life-Cycle Cost and Payback Period Analysis
The life-cycle cost (LCC) and payback period (PBP) analysis
determines the economic impact of potential standards on individual
consumers. The LCC is the total cost of purchasing, installing and
operating a commercial prerinse spray valve over the course of its
lifetime. The LCC analysis compares the LCC of a commercial prerinse
spray valve designed to meet possible energy conservation standards
with the LCC of a commercial prerinse spray valve likely to be
installed in the absence of amended standards. DOE determines LCCs by
considering (1) total installed cost to the consumer (which consists of
manufacturer selling price, distribution chain markups, and sales
taxes), (2) the range of annual energy consumption of commercial
prerinse spray valves that meet each of the ELs considered as they are
used in the field, (3) the operating cost of commercial prerinse spray
valves (e.g., energy and water costs), (4) CPSV lifetime, and (5) a
discount rate that reflects the real consumer cost of capital and puts
the LCC in present-value terms.
The PBP represents the number of years needed to recover the
typically increased purchase price of higher-efficiency commercial
prerinse spray valves through savings in operating costs. PBP is
calculated by dividing the incremental increase in installed cost of
the higher efficiency product, compared to the baseline product, by the
annual savings in operating costs. In this analysis, because more
efficient products do not cost more than baseline efficiency products,
the PBP is zero, meaning that consumers do not have any incremental
product costs to recover via lower operating costs.
For commercial prerinse spray valves, DOE performed an energy and
water use analysis that calculated energy and water use of commercial
prerinse spray valves at each EL within each product class identified
in the engineering analysis. DOE determined the range of annual energy
consumption and annual water consumption using the flow rate of each EL
within each product class from the engineering analysis, the average
annual operating time, and the energy required to heat a gallon of
water used at the commercial prerinse spray valve. Recognizing that
several inputs to the determination of consumer LCC and PBP are either
variable or uncertain (e.g., annual energy consumption, product
lifetime, electricity price, discount rate), DOE conducts the LCC and
PBP analysis by modeling both the uncertainty and variability in the
inputs using a Monte Carlo simulation and probability distributions.
The primary outputs of the LCC and PBP analysis are (1) average LCCs,
(2) median PBPs, and (3) the percentage of consumers that experience a
net cost for each product class and EL. The average annual energy
consumption derived in the LCC analysis is used as an input to the
National Impact Analysis (NIA).
C. National Impact Analysis
The NIA estimates the national energy savings (NES), national water
savings (NWS), and the net present value (NPV) of total consumer costs
and savings expected to result from potential new standards at each
trial standard level (TSL). In this NODA, DOE provides results for a
total of five TSLs, one of which uses an alternative shipments
scenario. TSLs 1 through 4 utilize a default shipments scenario similar
to the shipments scenario presented in the NOPR, while TSL 4a utilizes
the alternative shipments scenario. The default and alternative
shipments scenarios are discussed later in this section.
The TSLs analyzed in this NODA are shown in Table II.4. These TSLs
were chosen based on the following criteria:
TSL 1 represents the first EL above the market minimum for
each product class. That is, for product classes 1 and 2, TSL 1
represents EL 2 which is a 15 percent savings above the market minimum.
For product class 3, TSL 1 represents EL 1 which is a 10 percent
savings above the market minimum (which is also the Federal standard
level).
TSL 2 represents the second EL above market minimum for
each product class. That is, for product classes 1 and 2, TSL 2
represents EL 3 which is a 25 percent savings above the market minimum.
For product class 3, TSL 3 represents the WaterSense level, or 20
percent savings above the market minimum (i.e., the Federal standard).
TSL 3 represents the minimum flow rates for each product
class that would not induce consumers to switch product classes as a
result of a standard at those flow rates (as discussed in the CPSV
NOPR), and retains shower-type designs. That is, DOE selected the
lowest flow rates that would allow consumers to maintain provided
utility without purchasing units from a different product class. As
discussed in section II.A, DOE believes that spray force and flow rate
are strongly correlated and that specific flow rate-spray force
combinations represent distinct utility in the market. Therefore, DOE
analyzed TSL 3, which exhibits no
[[Page 72612]]
product class switching, as the TSL that maintains customer utility and
availability of products in the marketplace.
TSL 4 represents max-tech for all product classes under
the default shipments scenario, which assumes the total volume of
shipments does not change as a function of the standard level selected.
Consumers in product classes 1 and 2 would purchase a compliant CPSV
model with flow rates most similar to the flow rate they would purchase
in the absence of a standard. This TSL assumes that purchasers of
shower-type commercial prerinse spray valves would transition to single
orifice CPSV models but recognizes that the utility or usability of
compliant CPSV models in those applications may be impacted.
TSL 4a represents max-tech for all product classes under
an alternative shipments scenario. Since the utility of single-orifice
CPSV models may not be equivalent in some applications that previously
used shower-type CPSV, this alternative shipments scenario analyzes the
case where, rather than accepting the decreased usability of a
compliant CPSV model, consumers of shower-type units instead exit the
CPSV market and purchase faucets, which have a maximum flow rate of 2.2
gpm under the current federal standard. Thus, shipments of compliant
CPSV models are much lower under this TSL and water consumption higher
due to increased faucet shipments.
Table II.4--Efficiency Levels by Product Class and TSL
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TSL Product class 1 Product class 2 Product class 3 Shipments scenario
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................ 2 2 1 Default.
2............................ 3 3 2 Default.
3............................ 1 1 2 Default.
4............................ 4 4 3 Default.
4a........................... 4 4 3 Alternate.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The reported NIA results, in section III.B, reflect the additional
testing of units DOE conducted after the NOPR (as discussed in section
II.A), and include updated product allocations by product class and EL,
as well as updated data sources.
DOE calculated NES, NWS, and NPV for each TSL as the difference
between a no-new-standards case scenario (without amended standards)
and the standards case scenario (with amended standards). Cumulative
energy savings are the sum of the annual NES determined over the
lifetime of commercial prerinse spray valves shipped during the
analysis period. Energy savings reported include the full-fuel cycle
energy savings (i.e., includes the energy needed to extract, process,
and deliver primary fuel sources such as coal and natural gas, and the
conversion and distribution losses of generating electricity from those
fuel sources). Similarly, cumulative water savings are the sum of the
annual NWS determined over the lifetime of commercial prerinse spray
valves shipped during the analysis period. The NPV is the sum over time
of the discounted net savings each year, which consists of the
difference between total operating cost savings and any changes in
total installed costs. NPV results are reported for discount rates of 3
percent and 7 percent. Under the alternative shipments scenario, DOE
accounts for the energy and water use of CPSV models that remain within
the scope of this rule and also accounts for the change in energy or
water use for consumers that chose to exit the CPSV market, and instead
purchase faucets, as a result of the standard. As a result, realized
savings resulting from TSL 4a are reduced compared to savings for TSL 4
under the default shipments scenario.
To calculate the NES, NWS, and NPV, DOE projected future shipments
and efficiency distributions (for each TSL) for each CPSV product
class. After further research and consideration of public comments
regarding product shipments (T&S, No. 23 at pp. 81), DOE updated its
shipments projections from the NOPR to more accurately characterize the
CPSV market. The most significant update was allocating more of the
overall market share to product class 3 relative to product classes 1
and 2 in the default shipments scenario, and the modeling of an
alternative shipments scenario where consumers of shower-type CPSV
models do not purchase compliant CPSV models in the standards case and,
instead, leave the CPSV market altogether and purchase faucets. Other
inputs to the NIA include the estimated CPSV lifetime, final installed
costs, and average annual energy and water consumption per unit from
the LCC. For detailed NIA results, see Table III.4 and Table III.5.
D. Manufacturer Impact Analysis
For the manufacturer impact analysis (MIA), DOE used the Government
Regulatory Impact Model (GRIM) to assess the economic impact of
potential standards on CPSV manufacturers. DOE developed key industry
average financial parameters for the GRIM using publicly available data
from corporate annual reports. Additionally, DOE used this and other
publicly available information to estimate and account for the
aggregate industry investment in capital expenditures and research and
development required to produce compliant products at each EL.
The GRIM uses this information in conjunction with inputs from
other analyses including MPCs from the engineering analysis, shipments
from the shipments analysis, and price trends from the NIA to model
industry annual cash flows from the base year through the end of the
analysis period. The primary quantitative output of this model is the
industry net present value (INPV), which DOE calculates as the sum of
industry cash flows discounted to the present day using industry
specific weighted average costs of capital.
Standards affect INPV by requiring manufacturers to make
investments in manufacturing capital and product development, and by a
change in the number of shipments. Under potential standards, DOE
expects that manufacturers may lose a portion of their INPV, which is
calculated as the difference between INPV in the no-new-standards case
and in the standards case. DOE examines a range of possible impacts on
industry by modeling scenarios with various levels of investment.
III. Results of the Economic Analyses
A. Economic Impacts on Consumers
Table III.1 through Table III.3 provide LCC and PBP results for all
ELs and the corresponding TSLs discussed in section II.C.
[[Page 72613]]
Table III.1--Product Class 1 LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class 1 (spray force <= 5 ozf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2014$
Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback
TSL level First year's Lifetime period years
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--...................................................... 0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0
3....................................................... 1 76 487 2,229 2,305 0.0
1....................................................... 2 76 414 1,895 1,971 0.0
2....................................................... 3 76 366 1,672 1,748 0.0
4, 4a................................................... 4 76 302 1,382 1,458 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the LCCs for each EL
to be compared under the same conditions.
Table III.2--Product Class 2 LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class 2 (spray force > 5 ozf and <= 8 ozf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2014$
Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback
TSL level First year's Lifetime period years
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--...................................................... 0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0
3....................................................... 1 76 585 2,675 2,751 0.0
1....................................................... 2 76 497 2,274 2,350 0.0
2....................................................... 3 76 439 2,006 2,082 0.0
4, 4a................................................... 4 76 356 1,627 1,704 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the LCCs for each EL
to be compared under the same conditions.
Table III.3--Product Class 3 LCC and PBP Results
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Product class 3 (spray force > 8 ozf)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average costs 2014$
Efficiency ---------------------------------------------------------------- Simple payback
TSL level First year's Lifetime period years
Installed cost operating cost operating cost LCC *
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--...................................................... 0 76 780 3,566 3,643 0.0
1....................................................... 1 76 702 3,210 3,286 0.0
2, 3.................................................... 2 76 624 2,853 2,929 0.0
4 **.................................................... 3 76 551 2,519 2,595 0.0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The average discounted LCC for each EL is calculated assuming that all purchases are for equipment only with that EL. This allows the LCCs for each EL
to be compared under the same conditions.
** LCC results are not presented for TSL 4a since the analysis assumes those consumers have left the CPSV market.
B. Economic Impacts on the Nation
Table III.4 provides energy and water impacts associated with each
TSL. Table III.5 provides NPV results.
Table III.4--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Cumulative National Energy and Water Savings for Products Shipped
in 2019-2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National energy savings quads * National water
TSL Product class ---------------------------------------- savings billion
Primary FFC gal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.008 0.009 10.831
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.113 0.123 144.916
ozf).
3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.082) (0.089) (105.275)
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 1....... 0.039 0.043 50.471
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 72614]]
2............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.008 0.009 10.831
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.244 0.264 311.926
ozf).
3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.165) (0.179) (210.875)
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 2....... 0.087 0.095 111.882
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.000 0.000 0.000
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.000 0.000 0.000
ozf).
3 (>8 ozf)........ 0.093 0.101 119.572
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 3....... 0.093 0.101 119.572
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4............................... 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.059 0.064 75.815
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.196 0.212 250.516
ozf).
3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.092) (0.100) (118.272)
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 4....... 0.163 0.176 208.059
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4a.............................. 1 (<=5 ozf)....... 0.059 0.064 75.815
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 0.196 0.212 250.516
ozf).
3 (>8 ozf)........ (0.463) (0.502) (593.418)
-----------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 4a...... (0.208) (0.226) (267.087)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* quads = quadrillion British thermal units.
Table III.5--Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves: Cumulative Net Present Value of Consumer Benefits for Products
Shipped in 2019-2048
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Net present value billion $2014
---------------------------------------
TSL Product class 7-Percent discount 3-Percent discount
rate rate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1......................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.067 $0.137
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $0.892 $1.828
3 (>8 ozf).................. ($0.656) ($1.342)
---------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 1................. $0.303 $0.623
---------------------------------------------------------------------
2......................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.067 $0.137
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $1.924 $3.943
3 (>8 ozf).................. ($1.319) ($2.699)
---------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 2................. $0.672 $1.381
---------------------------------------------------------------------
3......................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.000 $0.000
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $0.000 $0.000
3 (>8 ozf).................. $0.718 $1.476
---------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 3................. $0.718 $1.476
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4......................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.473 $0.968
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $1.539 $3.156
3 (>8 ozf).................. ($0.763) ($1.557)
---------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 4................. $1.249 $2.568
---------------------------------------------------------------------
4a *...................................... 1 (<=5 ozf)................. $0.473 $0.968
2 (>5 ozf and <=8 ozf)...... $1.539 $3.156
3 (>8 ozf).................. ($3.616) ($7.421)
---------------------------------------
TOTAL TSL 4a................ ($1.604) ($3.297)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* In TSL 4a, DOE assumed that the installed costs for faucets and commercial prerinse spray valves are equal.
[[Page 72615]]
C. Economic Impacts on Manufacturers
Table III.6 provides manufacturer impacts under the sourced
materials conversion cost scenario. Table III.7 provides manufacturer
impacts under the fabricated materials conversion cost scenario.
Table III.6--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Sourced Materials Conversion Cost Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units No-new- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
standards case 1 2 3 4 4a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.............................. 2014$ MM............ 8.6 7.7 7.5 8.0 7.1 5.0
Change in INPV ($)................ 2014$ MM............ .............. (0.8) (1.1) (0.6) (1.5) (3.6)
Change in INPV (%)................ %................... .............. (9.9) (12.8) (6.5) (17.4) (41.8)
Product Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 1.5 1.8 0.8 2.4 2.4
Capital Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 0.1 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2
Total Investment Required......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 1.6 2.0 1.0 2.6 2.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table III.7--Manufacturer Impact Analysis for Commercial Prerinse Spray Valves Under the Fabricated Materials Conversion Cost Scenario
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trial standard level
Units No-new- -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
standards case 1 2 3 4 4a
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
INPV.............................. 2014$ MM............ 8.6 7.1 6.7 7.4 6.2 4.1
Change in INPV ($)................ 2014$ MM............ .............. (1.5) (1.8) (1.1) (2.4) (4.5)
Change in INPV (%)................ %................... .............. (17.5) (21.4) (13.1) (28.0) (52.3)
Product Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 1.5 1.8 0.8 2.4 2.4
Capital Conversion Costs.......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 0.8 1.0 0.8 1.2 1.2
Total Investment Required......... 2014$ MM............ .............. 2.3 2.8 1.6 3.6 3.6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IV. Public Participation
While DOE is not requesting comments on specific portions of the
analysis, DOE is interested in receiving comments on all aspects of the
data and analysis presented in the NODA and supporting documentation
that can be found at: https://www1.eere.energy.gov/buildings/appliance_standards/product.aspx/productid/54.
A. Submission of Comments
DOE will accept comments, data, and information regarding this
notice no later than the date provided in the DATES section at the
beginning of this notice. Interested parties may submit comments, data,
and other information using any of the methods described in the
ADDRESSES section at the beginning of this notice.
Submitting comments via www.regulations.gov. The
www.regulations.gov Web page will require you to provide your name and
contact information. Your contact information will only be viewable to
DOE Building Technologies staff. Your contact information will not be
publicly viewable except for your first and last names, organization
name (if any), and submitter representative name (if any). If your
comment is not processed properly because of technical difficulties,
DOE will use this information to contact you. If DOE cannot read your
comment due to technical difficulties and cannot contact you for
clarification, DOE may not be able to consider your comment.
However, your contact information will be publicly viewable if you
include it in the comment itself or in any documents attached to your
comment. Any information that you do not want to be publicly viewable
should not be included in your comment, nor in any document attached to
your comment. Otherwise, persons viewing comments will see only first
and last names, organization names, correspondence containing comments,
and any documents submitted with the comments.
Do not submit to www.regulations.gov information for which
disclosure is restricted by statute, such as trade secrets and
commercial or financial information (hereinafter referred to as
Confidential Business Information (CBI)). Comments submitted through
www.regulations.gov cannot be claimed as CBI. Comments received through
the Web site will waive any CBI claims for the information submitted.
For information on submitting CBI, see the Confidential Business
Information section below.
DOE processes submissions made through www.regulations.gov before
posting. Normally, comments will be posted within a few days of being
submitted. However, if large volumes of comments are being processed
simultaneously, your comment may not be viewable for up to several
weeks. Please keep the comment tracking number that www.regulations.gov
provides after you have successfully uploaded your comment.
[[Page 72616]]
Submitting comments via email, hand delivery/courier, or mail.
Comments and documents submitted via email, hand delivery, or mail will
also be posted to www.regulations.gov. If you do not want your personal
contact information to be publicly viewable, do not include it in your
comment or any accompanying documents. Instead, provide your contact
information in a cover letter. Include your first and last names, email
address, telephone number, and optional mailing address. The cover
letter will not be publicly viewable as long as it does not include any
comments.
Include contact information each time you submit comments, data,
documents, and other information to DOE. If you submit via mail or hand
delivery/courier, please provide all items on a CD, if feasible, in
which case it is not necessary to submit printed copies. No facsimiles
(faxes) will be accepted.
Comments, data, and other information submitted to DOE
electronically should be provided in portable document format (PDF)
(preferred), Microsoft Word or Excel, WordPerfect, or text (ASCII) file
format. Provide documents that are not secured, that are written in
English, and that are free of any defects or viruses. Documents should
not contain special characters or any form of encryption and, if
possible, they should carry the electronic signature of the author.
Campaign form letters. Please submit campaign form letters by the
originating organization in batches of between 50 and 500 form letters
per PDF or as one form letter with a list of supporters' names compiled
into one or more PDFs. This reduces comment processing and posting
time.
Confidential Business Information. Pursuant to 10 CFR 1004.11, any
person submitting information that he or she believes to be
confidential and exempt by law from public disclosure should submit two
well-marked copies: One copy of the document marked ``confidential''
including all the information believed to be confidential, and one copy
of the document marked ``non-confidential'' with the information
believed to be confidential deleted. Submit these documents via email
or on a CD, if feasible. DOE will make its own determination about the
confidential status of the information and treat it according to its
determination.
Factors of interest to DOE when evaluating requests to treat
submitted information as confidential include: (1) A description of the
items, (2) whether and why such items are customarily treated as
confidential within the industry, (3) whether the information is
generally known by or available from other sources, (4) whether the
information has previously been made available to others without
obligation concerning its confidentiality, (5) an explanation of the
competitive injury to the submitting person which would result from
public disclosure, (6) when such information might lose its
confidential character due to the passage of time, and (7) why
disclosure of the information would be contrary to the public interest.
It is DOE's policy that all comments may be included in the public
docket, without change and as received, including any personal
information provided in the comments (except information deemed to be
exempt from public disclosure).
V. Approval of the Office of the Secretary
The Secretary of Energy has approved publication of this notice of
data availability.
Issued in Washington, DC, on November 16, 2015.
Kathleen B. Hogan,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Energy Efficiency, Energy Efficiency and
Renewable Energy.
[FR Doc. 2015-29676 Filed 11-19-15; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6450-01-P
